[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A question for package maintainers still using TexInfo < 5
From: |
Julien Bect |
Subject: |
Re: A question for package maintainers still using TexInfo < 5 |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Apr 2015 22:06:31 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 |
Le 23/04/2015 23:17, Julien Bect a écrit :
Thank you all for your answers. I think that I have enough information
now to propose a fix. Here is what I propose to do:
1) I will rewrite the existing — hack (for TeckInfo < 5) using a
more precise regexprep, to avoid replacing — entities not
related to @deftypefn and @deftypefnx blocks.
2) Since the goal is to introduce a class="functionfile" attribute to
control formating, I will propose a similar hack for TexInfo >= 5.
Then we will have <p class="functionfile"> </p> tags with TexInfo <5,
and <dt class="functionfile"> </dt> tags with TexInfo >=5.
3) Extend the existing Octave-Forge CSS to define dt.functionfile
(p.functionfile is already defined).
Would that be acceptable for everyone ?
I have implemented a slightly modified version of the first two points
in this changeset:
http://sourceforge.net/p/octave/generate_html/ci/27af743d59986ee762f5b6f2db7445055ac16bdb/
As a result, @deftypefn and @deftypefn are converted into <dt
class="deftypefn"> </dt> blocks, both in TexInfo 4.x and in TexInfo 5.x.
Is this ok for everyone ?
Re: A question for package maintainers still using TexInfo < 5, John W. Eaton, 2015/04/23